.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This monumental figure of Padmapani Lokeshvara, the embodiment of Avalokiteshvara’s universal compassion, is among the most important surviving bronzes of the early Himalayan tradition. Standing in tribhanga, with the left knee slightly bent and the hip tilted gracefully to the right, the bodhisattva exudes a sense of poised movement. His right hand displays varada mudra, the gesture of charity, while the left originally held the stem of a lotus, now lost, that once unfurled beside his shoulder. The figure is adorned with royal jewelry: heavy earrings, a necklace, finely ornamented waist belt, and bracelets. The crown is richly detailed with floral ornaments above the ears, complemented by loose strands of hair cascading over the shoulders. The dhoti, secured by an elaborate belt at the hips and a second diagonal band across the thigh, is rendered with rhythmic precision. A thin Brahmanic cord drapes elegantly over the left shoulder, harmonizing with the body’s sinuous posture.
The surface of the sculpture, with its distinctive salmon-gold shimmer and silver inlay, reflects an extraordinary technical sophistication. At over 60 cm high, its scale and refinement suggest an image of exceptional ritual importance, likely commissioned for an imperial or monastic setting during the height of Tibetan power.
Scholarly opinions on the dating of this masterpiece have varied over the past thirty years since it was subject to study. The most recent work by the late Yury Khokhlov (2013) presented a compelling argument in line with Marylin Rhie’s early thesis on Interrelationships between the Buddhist Art of China and the Art of India and Central Asia from 618-755 AD 1988 and the essay in Wisdom and Compassion (1996). She noted “this sculpture, probably Avalokiteshvara, is likely a rare survival from the latter part of the Yarlung dynasty. It has the character of a Tibetan creation following well-established Nepalese forms. Every aspect of the work points to a date circa 9th century rather than later. The body has a solid, substantial, naturalistic mass consonant with the Tang-period sculptures of China and Central Asia (7th-9th century) and is related to the sculptures of Kachu monastery of ca. the second quarter of the 9th century (Vitali, 1990,p. 22, pls. 5-10). ”
While Khohkolov (2013) observed that while our bodhisattva has close affinities “to the 9th century Nepalese examples and particularly to Avalokitesvara from Gahiti, Patan, Nepal (see Bangdel, 1987, no.158). At the same time, it possesses unusual qualities for a Nepalese sculpture with its powerful neck, which draws similarities to the mural in Yulin cave no. 25 belonging to the period of the Tibetan occupation of the Hexi corridor in the late 8th and early 9th centuries and dated by scholars from the Dunhuang Academy to 821AD (Jinshi, Fan. The Caves of Dunhuang, Honk Kong, 2010, p. 185 fig. 8. The figures in the mural reflect Tang dynasty aesthetics and resemble 8th century Chinese marble sculptures from Anguosi temple (see Siren, Chinese Sculpture From the Fifth to the Fourteenth Centuries. Bangkok: SDI Publications, 1998, pl. 583 A and B)”.
The weight of stylistic and technical evidence strongly supports attribution to the Tibetan Imperial period (7th–9th century). The figure’s monumental scale, solid casting, and synthesis of Indian Pala elegance with emerging Tibetan aesthetics align closely with other bronzes securely dated to the Tubo era. Comparable works include bronzes documented by Khokhlov (Metal Sculptures of the Tibetan Imperial Period, Asianart.com, 2013) and examples illustrated in von Schroeder Indo-Tibetan Bronzes, 1981, p.345, no.88F, as well as related triads from the Heeramaneck Collection now in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (M.79.9.4). These parallels confirm the rarity and importance of this Padmapani within the corpus of early Tibetan Buddhist art.
This figure is not only a devotional icon but a landmark in the history of Buddhist sculpture, a testament to the cultural and spiritual exchanges that shaped the Himalayan world during the first millennium. Its remarkable form and commanding presence position it among the most significant works of early Himalayan Buddhist sculpture to appear at auction.
The surface of the sculpture, with its distinctive salmon-gold shimmer and silver inlay, reflects an extraordinary technical sophistication. At over 60 cm high, its scale and refinement suggest an image of exceptional ritual importance, likely commissioned for an imperial or monastic setting during the height of Tibetan power.
Scholarly opinions on the dating of this masterpiece have varied over the past thirty years since it was subject to study. The most recent work by the late Yury Khokhlov (2013) presented a compelling argument in line with Marylin Rhie’s early thesis on Interrelationships between the Buddhist Art of China and the Art of India and Central Asia from 618-755 AD 1988 and the essay in Wisdom and Compassion (1996). She noted “this sculpture, probably Avalokiteshvara, is likely a rare survival from the latter part of the Yarlung dynasty. It has the character of a Tibetan creation following well-established Nepalese forms. Every aspect of the work points to a date circa 9th century rather than later. The body has a solid, substantial, naturalistic mass consonant with the Tang-period sculptures of China and Central Asia (7th-9th century) and is related to the sculptures of Kachu monastery of ca. the second quarter of the 9th century (Vitali, 1990,p. 22, pls. 5-10). ”
While Khohkolov (2013) observed that while our bodhisattva has close affinities “to the 9th century Nepalese examples and particularly to Avalokitesvara from Gahiti, Patan, Nepal (see Bangdel, 1987, no.158). At the same time, it possesses unusual qualities for a Nepalese sculpture with its powerful neck, which draws similarities to the mural in Yulin cave no. 25 belonging to the period of the Tibetan occupation of the Hexi corridor in the late 8th and early 9th centuries and dated by scholars from the Dunhuang Academy to 821AD (Jinshi, Fan. The Caves of Dunhuang, Honk Kong, 2010, p. 185 fig. 8. The figures in the mural reflect Tang dynasty aesthetics and resemble 8th century Chinese marble sculptures from Anguosi temple (see Siren, Chinese Sculpture From the Fifth to the Fourteenth Centuries. Bangkok: SDI Publications, 1998, pl. 583 A and B)”.
The weight of stylistic and technical evidence strongly supports attribution to the Tibetan Imperial period (7th–9th century). The figure’s monumental scale, solid casting, and synthesis of Indian Pala elegance with emerging Tibetan aesthetics align closely with other bronzes securely dated to the Tubo era. Comparable works include bronzes documented by Khokhlov (Metal Sculptures of the Tibetan Imperial Period, Asianart.com, 2013) and examples illustrated in von Schroeder Indo-Tibetan Bronzes, 1981, p.345, no.88F, as well as related triads from the Heeramaneck Collection now in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (M.79.9.4). These parallels confirm the rarity and importance of this Padmapani within the corpus of early Tibetan Buddhist art.
This figure is not only a devotional icon but a landmark in the history of Buddhist sculpture, a testament to the cultural and spiritual exchanges that shaped the Himalayan world during the first millennium. Its remarkable form and commanding presence position it among the most significant works of early Himalayan Buddhist sculpture to appear at auction.